Business & Real Estate
Litigation Representative Cases
The following examples of the work performed by Callanan, Rogers & Dzida, LLP (the “Firm”) are for illustrative purposes only. Every case or legal issue depends on its own facts, law and the unique credibility of the witnesses involved. Results similar to the following are not and cannot be guaranteed. Get good legal advice and help now in order to protect your interests. Contact us here.
The firm represented a tenant of commercial property in the South Bay. The tenant’s lease included an option to purchase the property for $3.3 million. However, because the property had gone up in value, the landlord refused to honor the option, claiming that the tenant was in breach of the lease. The landlord demanded $4.75 million instead. The firm filed suit on the tenant’s behalf for specific performance and helped the tenant negotiate a settlement under which the tenant purchased the property for $3.3 million.
After fruitless settlement negotiations, a client engaged the Firm to file a lawsuit against a company that had not paid bills owed to the client. On the eve of trial, the company offered only $75,000 in a settlement; but the Firm helped the client negotiate a settlement for $545,000 (i.e. the full amount due plus interest).
The firm represented a client that received goods trucked to it from the Port for customers by a trucking company. After it failed to obtain payment from the customer, the trucking company then sent invoices to the firm’s client claiming it had an “oral contract” that the client would also pay. The trial judge found in favor of the firm’s client on all counts.
Joe Dzida defended a client who had sued his neighbors and the City because the fence between the client’s and the neighbors’ properties were torn down and modified based on an “after the fact over the counter” permit issued by the City in violation of its own ordinances. The City filed a special SLAPP motion to strike the lawsuit, claiming that it engaged in “protected” free speech activity by issuing the permit, and claiming that the City should recover its own attorney’s fees in the lawsuit. In a published decision, the Court of Appeal held that the City was wrong, that the City’s conduct was not “protected,” and that if the City’s position was valid citizens would be chilled from challenging illegal governmental conduct.
A client of the Firm was sued for over $100,000,000 in alleged personal injury and property damages claimed to have arisen from mold infestation after a burst pipe valve flooding incident. Joe Dzida moved to exclude all of these claims in the trial court because the plaintiffs’ mold investigation report did not meet the requirements of a business record and was, therefore, not admissible; and because the plaintiffs’ medical expert could not establish a causal connection between the mold infestation and the injuries claimed. The motion was granted, knocking out the mold claims. The Plaintiffs then appealed. Joe Dzida argued the case and prevailed on appeal.
Joe Dzida closed the $88 million sale to a government agency of 413 apartment units in 35 buildings. The client had unsuccessfully negotiated with the agency for over a decade. Joe helped the client reach terms with the government, document the agreement, overcome title problems and legal challenges from those trying to extract a share of the sales proceeds for themselves, and close the deal.
Hoping to force a sale at a lowball, discounted price, a developer sued a client of the Firm seeking to force the client to build affordable housing units on vacant land the client had acquired through foreclosure. Joe Dzida served as the client’s lawyer both at trial and on appeal, each of which Joe won. Joe then helped the client close the $6 million sale of the land to the developer who had sued the client.
Joe Dzida and Rob Rogers represented a minority shareholder ousted from a company after many years of service. During his deposition, the majority shareholder produced a roomful of boxes of documents, heavily redacted in black felt pen, and stated that inspection would be allowed only during the deposition. During lunch, Joe and Rob scanned and located a smoking gun; i.e. a document showing a list of payments to shareholders with the names inked out. The largest payments, however, obviously went to the majority shareholder and he confirmed this at his deposition under oath. The amount shown was more than his percentage share and confirmed that he was diverting corporate funds to his personal use. The case quickly settled at a sum agreeable to the client.
A jury awarded Joe Dzida’s clients $474,891.43 in damages, plus interest and punitive damages, and stripped the defendants of their interest in an interlocking group of business entities, after finding that the defendants had intentionally and with malice misappropriated corporate and partnership funds to their own use, and had used the Joe’s clients’ money in order to make their own capital contributions.
Represented by Rob Rogers and Charles Callanan, a minority shareholder of a small California Corporation discovered that the president and majority shareholder were diverting clients and profits to another corporation. Exercising its rights under California law to dissolve the corporation and seek court supervision of the corporations affairs, our client gained leverage through use of the discovery process to uncover numerous bad acts by the majority shareholder. SWD’s forensic accountants traced the purchase of several properties which were arguably assets of the corporation (thereby bolstering its share value), SWD’s client eventually obtained a very favorable settlement.
Clients of the firm were accused of misappropriating a partnership opportunity. The plaintiffs sought over $2 million in damages. However, with Joe Dzida representing them as trial attorney, the clients prevailed and the judge awarded the plaintiffs nothing. The case then settled with the plaintiffs agreeing to pay attorney’s fees to the firm’s clients.
A debtor declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy and tried to obtain approval of a Chapter 11 plan that would pay only a small part of what was owed to the firm’s clients. However, Joe Dzida built the case that this “cram down” was not appropriate. The debtor ultimately paid the full amount due to the firm’s clients.
Joe Dzida prevailed at trial representing clients of the firm who were falsely accused of breach of contract in a lawsuit arising out of the financial collapse of a developer who promised to build affordable housing. The firm’s clients had loaned money to this developer in order to give him and the plaintiffs more time to complete their affordable housing project. When the collapse occurred, the firm’s clients foreclosed; but the plaintiffs then accused them of being the “successors” to the collapsed developer.
Charles Callanan represented a client in the sale of land used as a parking lot, in order to provide additional funding badly needed by the client, and to help the client settle a lawsuit. The purchase plans to construct an apartment complex on the property, but the seller/client is assured reserved, covered parking.
Joe Dzida negotiated the sale of two three parcels of land, each former railroad right of way, on behalf of the descendants of the original grantors to the railroad. Joe represented the descendants over a twenty five year period, confirming their title to the right of way in litigation, and then negotiating over time the sale of the land in three pieces.
Rob Rogers was brought in shortly before trial to help end bitter family a business feud that had been ongoing for over twelve years. The clients were being sued for millions of dollars including a request for punitive damages. Years of costly litigation had taken a tremendous financial and emotional toil on the family. Mr. Rogers was able to step in and simplify matters, identify key leverage points, locate an ideal mediator and resolve this matter with an amicable resolution that benefited all parties.
I do very much appreciate you following through and making this possible. It speaks to your knowledge and also care with how you approach your work and your advocacy for small business and people like me who will not be familiar with this intricate and complex process.
I want to take a moment to thank you. I have contacted a few attorneys. Many have given me vague information, and some have flat out stated that I have no case. You sir have really done some research and looked into this matter with a sense of care. I could tell when we spoke last week that you were very diligent in your questioning and out of the 50 or so attorneys I have conversed with over the past few weeks, you have been by far the most thorough.
I want you to know that I was very impressed with your deposition style.
Thanks for the good news and doing such a great job as our counsel. All of your efforts in leading us through this ordeal are truly appreciated.